uta999
Topic Author
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:10 am

JFK / SFO bay development

Sun Feb 11, 2018 7:27 pm

Have there ever been or will there ever be future expansion at both JFK and SFO, by reclaiming land from the Bay area surrounding them both?

Considering how important both airports are, I am very surprised by the lack of future planning. It would have been a lot easier decades ago, than now.
Your computer just got better
 
SpaceshipDC10
Posts: 5529
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:44 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sun Feb 11, 2018 7:38 pm

uta999 wrote:
Have there ever been or will there ever be future expansion at both JFK and SFO, by reclaiming land from the Bay area surrounding them both?


Regarding JFK, if not mistaken, I believe Jamaica Bay is off limits for expansion since it's a protected wildlife area.
I have discovered that once people are truly captivated in their ignorance, they are generally unwilling to let the facts interfere.
(Rick Drury's Flightlines "Paychecks", Airways April 2003)
 
hayzel777
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 3:18 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sun Feb 11, 2018 7:40 pm

uta999 wrote:
Have there ever been or will there ever be future expansion at both JFK and SFO, by reclaiming land from the Bay area surrounding them both?

Considering how important both airports are, I am very surprised by the lack of future planning. It would have been a lot easier decades ago, than now.

SFO has proposed moving 28R into the bay to allow for dual runway use(the 28s are currently too close if the weather goes bad or it’s night time); however, the local environmentalists oppose the plans and the last time it was proposed, protests were all over City Hall and people chained themselves to parts of the airport. The airport has never proposed any reclaimed land projects ever since.
 
RJNUT
Posts: 1582
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 1999 1:58 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sun Feb 11, 2018 7:47 pm

hayzel777 wrote:
uta999 wrote:
Have there ever been or will there ever be future expansion at both JFK and SFO, by reclaiming land from the Bay area surrounding them both?

Considering how important both airports are, I am very surprised by the lack of future planning. It would have been a lot easier decades ago, than now.

SFO has proposed moving 28R into the bay to allow for dual runway use(the 28s are currently too close if the weather goes bad or it’s night time); however, the local environmentalists oppose the plans and the last time it was proposed, protests were all over City Hall and people chained themselves to parts of the airport. The airport has never proposed any reclaimed land projects ever since.


I wonder how many of those "chainers" have ever loudly displayed their upset over the chronic delays at SFO or exhorbitant fares?!
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 2745
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sun Feb 11, 2018 7:55 pm

As far as I know in both cases it's impossible to reclaim land from the water because that water is a protected nature area.

I agree that they should have thought about that many decades ago, and that goes for all airports that are completely built-in by the cities. Being built-in does limit the capacity of an airport and the only thing you can do is shift over capacity to other airports.

However this is where New York and San Francisco are different. San Francisco does have sufficient relief airports, namely Oakland and San Jose. All growth for the San Francisco area that can't take place at San Francisco can take place there. New York on the other hand has three airports with the same problem. JFK, La Guardia and Newark are completely built-in so they can't serve as relief airports for each other. There's limited growth possible at Long Island MacArthur and Westchester County, but those are just small and in the end they face the same problem. The only airport that can still grow is Stewart, but that's quite far away from the city. Still, if they invest in a fast and reliable connection between Stewart airport and New York City I think this place has a great future. It's the only airport where there's still serious growth possible. But we shouldn't say "Stewart is too small and too far away" and therefor not invest in it, because then in a few decades it'll have the same problem as the other airports. We have to invest in it now because we'll need it in a few decades.
 
birdbrainz
Posts: 464
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 6:57 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:09 pm

RJNUT wrote:
hayzel777 wrote:
uta999 wrote:
Have there ever been or will there ever be future expansion at both JFK and SFO, by reclaiming land from the Bay area surrounding them both?

Considering how important both airports are, I am very surprised by the lack of future planning. It would have been a lot easier decades ago, than now.

SFO has proposed moving 28R into the bay to allow for dual runway use(the 28s are currently too close if the weather goes bad or it’s night time); however, the local environmentalists oppose the plans and the last time it was proposed, protests were all over City Hall and people chained themselves to parts of the airport. The airport has never proposed any reclaimed land projects ever since.


I wonder how many of those "chainers" have ever loudly displayed their upset over the chronic delays at SFO or exhorbitant fares?!


Having grown up in the Bay Area, but thank God don't live there now, don't ever look for logic in the NIMBYs. They'll moan about the aircraft noise at SFO, but don't build a runway in the bay that will reduce the approach noise, as well as permit simultaneous ILS approaches. It would also greatly help with the problem of lining up incorrectly as that Air Canada flight did.

Also, SFO was quite lucky that the wreckage of Asiana accident didn't end up at the runway intersections or that place would have been closed for days (weeks?).

I always chuckle that Greensboro's airport has as much ILS bad weather landing capacity as SFO, at least in principle, and another parallel runway is already planned. Go figure.
A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is if the aircraft can be flown again.
 
loisencroach
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 3:56 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:09 pm

RJNUT wrote:
hayzel777 wrote:
uta999 wrote:
Have there ever been or will there ever be future expansion at both JFK and SFO, by reclaiming land from the Bay area surrounding them both?

Considering how important both airports are, I am very surprised by the lack of future planning. It would have been a lot easier decades ago, than now.

SFO has proposed moving 28R into the bay to allow for dual runway use(the 28s are currently too close if the weather goes bad or it’s night time); however, the local environmentalists oppose the plans and the last time it was proposed, protests were all over City Hall and people chained themselves to parts of the airport. The airport has never proposed any reclaimed land projects ever since.


I wonder how many of those "chainers" have ever loudly displayed their upset over the chronic delays at SFO or exhorbitant fares?!


I grew up in the Bay Area. Those people can afford the airfare.
 
loisencroach
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 3:56 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:11 pm

loisencroach wrote:
RJNUT wrote:
hayzel777 wrote:
SFO has proposed moving 28R into the bay to allow for dual runway use(the 28s are currently too close if the weather goes bad or it’s night time); however, the local environmentalists oppose the plans and the last time it was proposed, protests were all over City Hall and people chained themselves to parts of the airport. The airport has never proposed any reclaimed land projects ever since.


I wonder how many of those "chainers" have ever loudly displayed their upset over the chronic delays at SFO or exhorbitant fares?!


I grew up in the Bay Area. Those people can afford the airfare. And for the minority that can't, they have no interest in travelling anywhere east of Reno anyway.
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 4959
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:13 pm

Both are in liberal cities filled with lots of NIMBYS. Nothing happening
 
User avatar
flyPIT
Posts: 1153
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 6:21 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:14 pm

JFK does not have a land issue. It has 5,000 acres and a third parallel 13/31 could be put on the north side all on existing property by relocating the buildings currently there to the western side. The problem with JFK is an airspace problem, which would not be solved by adding more runways. The existing runways are not used in an optimal configuration and until that changes there is no point in adding more.
FLYi
 
User avatar
NickolayAv
Posts: 360
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 9:44 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:14 pm

I'm pretty sure filling up areas has been met with protests about wildlife in pretty much every major airport that sits next to a body of water. (BOS, JFK, SFO, etc.)
"If you want to be a millionaire, start with a billion dollars and launch a new airline"-Richard Branson
 
birdbrainz
Posts: 464
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 6:57 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:33 pm

Oh, one more thing: SJC is completely hemmed in, so don't look for too much expansion or additional capacity at SJC. I don't know much about OAK's ability to expand. Oh, and Moffett Field ain't gonna happen. Too many NIMBY's there, too. As far as I can tell, there's more hope for NYC that SF because NYC isn't surrounded by a whole lotta hills like the way the SF Bay Area is.
A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is if the aircraft can be flown again.
 
User avatar
neomax
Posts: 948
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2017 3:26 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:35 pm

Man, those guys in Denver were really ahead of their time...
 
birdbrainz
Posts: 464
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 6:57 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:35 pm

loisencroach wrote:
loisencroach wrote:
RJNUT wrote:


I wonder how many of those "chainers" have ever loudly displayed their upset over the chronic delays at SFO or exhorbitant fares?!


I grew up in the Bay Area. Those people can afford the airfare. And for the minority that can't, they have no interest in traveling anywhere east of Reno anyway.


How true! LMAO.
A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is if the aircraft can be flown again.
 
User avatar
SFOA380
Posts: 548
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:35 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:37 pm

birdbrainz wrote:
RJNUT wrote:
hayzel777 wrote:
SFO has proposed moving 28R into the bay to allow for dual runway use(the 28s are currently too close if the weather goes bad or it’s night time); however, the local environmentalists oppose the plans and the last time it was proposed, protests were all over City Hall and people chained themselves to parts of the airport. The airport has never proposed any reclaimed land projects ever since.


I wonder how many of those "chainers" have ever loudly displayed their upset over the chronic delays at SFO or exhorbitant fares?!


Having grown up in the Bay Area, but thank God don't live there now, don't ever look for logic in the NIMBYs. They'll moan about the aircraft noise at SFO, but don't build a runway in the bay that will reduce the approach noise, as well as permit simultaneous ILS approaches. It would also greatly help with the problem of lining up incorrectly as that Air Canada flight did.

Also, SFO was quite lucky that the wreckage of Asiana accident didn't end up at the runway intersections or that place would have been closed for days (weeks?).

I always chuckle that Greensboro's airport has as much ILS bad weather landing capacity as SFO, at least in principle, and another parallel runway is already planned. Go figure.


If it weren’t for NIMBY-ism this place would’ve been ruined generations ago. Sounds like you found happiness in the south! Awesome for you! There’s a reason places like this are expensive...
 
User avatar
jeffh747
Posts: 802
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 6:32 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:49 pm

The topics of both airports expanding into their respective bays have already been discussed extensively on this forum. The way I see it, not gonna happen. Too many issues with environmentalists and the wildlife in the bays and their surrounding areas as well as the NIMBYs. I think we'd sooner see Boeing restart 757 production before SFO or JFK expands into the bays surrounding them :duck:
The idea of filling in land in the bay looks really good on paper, until you consider the potential environmental backlash and consequences.
Last edited by jeffh747 on Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
A318 A319 A320 A320neo A321 A321neo A332 A333 B717 B727 B734 B73G B738 B739 B752 B762 B763 B772 B788 CRJ2 DHC6 DHC8-300 E145 E190 MD82 MD83 MD90 SF340B
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 881
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:49 pm

Every place has some form of NIMBY and more has changed in the Bay Area than most people let on. It wouldn’t be easy, but there is more development kicking off right now than there has been in a while. When was the last time there was even an evaluation of additional runways? 18 years ago? Not saying it will happen, but the NIMBY bogeyman on A.net is somewhat overblown.
 
birdbrainz
Posts: 464
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 6:57 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sun Feb 11, 2018 9:10 pm

SFOA380 wrote:

If it weren’t for NIMBY-ism this place would’ve been ruined generations ago. Sounds like you found happiness in the south! Awesome for you! There’s a reason places like this are expensive...


I'm not saying all development should be automatically rubber-stamped. However, the bay area has had about the absolute worst urban planning ever, and it's continuing. Take a look at the proposed rail alignments for the new TransBay terminal in SF. One word: embarrassing. BART? non-standard gauge rails and too expensive. The 49ers new stadium? They put it right where traffic congestion is already really bad. Ever try using CalTrain to get to either SFO or SJC?

But maybe that's the point: maybe the urban planning and public infrastructure planners in the Bay Area are deliberately trying to make getting around as difficult as possible to keep people away. One word: Brilliant. In that case, we don't even need SFO.
A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is if the aircraft can be flown again.
 
AAvgeek744
Posts: 750
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 8:08 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sun Feb 11, 2018 9:37 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
Both are in liberal cities filled with lots of NIMBYS. Nothing happening


There is a difference between NIMBY's and environmentalists. Environmentalists have a rational argument. NIMBY's who live near an airport only have an argument if they were there before any expansion plans.
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 881
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:16 pm

AAvgeek744 wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
Both are in liberal cities filled with lots of NIMBYS. Nothing happening


There is a difference between NIMBY's and environmentalists. Environmentalists have a rational argument. NIMBY's who live near an airport only have an argument if they were there before any expansion plans.


Another oft repeated and untrue A.net piece of conventional wisdom. Any person who moves into a community has every right to try to make that community the best place it can be.
 
User avatar
SFOA380
Posts: 548
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:35 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:21 pm

birdbrainz wrote:
SFOA380 wrote:

If it weren’t for NIMBY-ism this place would’ve been ruined generations ago. Sounds like you found happiness in the south! Awesome for you! There’s a reason places like this are expensive...


I'm not saying all development should be automatically rubber-stamped. However, the bay area has had about the absolute worst urban planning ever, and it's continuing. Take a look at the proposed rail alignments for the new TransBay terminal in SF. One word: embarrassing. BART? non-standard gauge rails and too expensive. The 49ers new stadium? They put it right where traffic congestion is already really bad. Ever try using CalTrain to get to either SFO or SJC?

But maybe that's the point: maybe the urban planning and public infrastructure planners in the Bay Area are deliberately trying to make getting around as difficult as possible to keep people away. One word: Brilliant. In that case, we don't even need SFO.


The Bay Area CSA is approaching 9 MIL in population and, like all other big cities faces urban planning problems. They are certainly not unique to here. I take Caltrain every day. It’s a great way to get into the city and ridership has doubled over the past four years. Bart is hauling nearly 500K passengers daily and was designed for 125. Infrastructure changes are always painfully slow and rarely keep pace with population.
 
User avatar
KLMatSJC
Posts: 350
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 1:16 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:14 pm

PatrickZ80 wrote:
San Francisco does have sufficient relief airports, namely Oakland and San Jose. All growth for the San Francisco area that can't take place at San Francisco can take place there.


That is not as easy as you make it out to be. Both SJC and OAK have huge capacity issues right now. SJC just added three gates this year, and is working on their Terminal B expansion many years ahead of what they had originally planned. Both SJC and OAK expanded their international arrivals facilities this year. Oakland Airport grew around 8 and 9% over the last two years, while SJC grew 11 and 16% over the last two years. This is mega growth for airports of these sizes.
A318/19/20/21/21N A332/3 A343/5 A388 B712 B722 B732/3/4/7/8/9/9ER B744/4M B752/3 B762ER/3/3ER/4ER B77E/L/W B788 CRJ2/7/9 Q400 EMB-120 ERJ-140/145XR/175 DC-10-10 MD-82/83/88/90

Long Live the Tulip, Cactus, and Redwood
 
Themotionman
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:18 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:17 pm

HAF is the solution to all the Bay's problems! :lol:
 
BerenErchamion
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 12:44 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:53 pm

RJNUT wrote:
hayzel777 wrote:
uta999 wrote:
Have there ever been or will there ever be future expansion at both JFK and SFO, by reclaiming land from the Bay area surrounding them both?

Considering how important both airports are, I am very surprised by the lack of future planning. It would have been a lot easier decades ago, than now.

SFO has proposed moving 28R into the bay to allow for dual runway use(the 28s are currently too close if the weather goes bad or it’s night time); however, the local environmentalists oppose the plans and the last time it was proposed, protests were all over City Hall and people chained themselves to parts of the airport. The airport has never proposed any reclaimed land projects ever since.


I wonder how many of those "chainers" have ever loudly displayed their upset over the chronic delays at SFO or exhorbitant fares?!


...why would they? It's like asking why Civil Rights marchers didn't also march against Alex Karras and Paul Hornung: involved-actor sports gambling wasn't their cause.
It's OK to be rude to fascists.
 
WA707atMSP
Posts: 1676
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:16 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:08 am

In the 1960s, the Port Authority proposed filling in Jamaica Bay. A second terminal complex would have been built in the bay, with another runway by Rockaway Beach. Until the bay could be filled in, the Port Authority proposed a long taxiway to Floyd Bennett Field so aircraft could land at Floyd Bennett Field and taxi to JFK.

The Gateway National Recreation Area was created to ensure the airport could not expand into the bay. Another unit of Gateway was created to prevent a proposed super tanker terminal across New York Harbor at Sandy Hook, New Jersey.

We will NEVER see the bay filled in for airport expansion....and because I love birds as much as I love airplanes, I think that is a good thing!
 
77H
Posts: 1112
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:24 am

hayzel777 wrote:
uta999 wrote:
Have there ever been or will there ever be future expansion at both JFK and SFO, by reclaiming land from the Bay area surrounding them both?

Considering how important both airports are, I am very surprised by the lack of future planning. It would have been a lot easier decades ago, than now.

SFO has proposed moving 28R into the bay to allow for dual runway use(the 28s are currently too close if the weather goes bad or it’s night time); however, the local environmentalists oppose the plans and the last time it was proposed, protests were all over City Hall and people chained themselves to parts of the airport. The airport has never proposed any reclaimed land projects ever since.


What about building a runway out over the bay on stilts rather than reclaimed land similar to HND's newest runway? My initial thought is that it would be a nonstarter due to the Coastal California's seismic activity. But Tokyo and Japan in general is no stranger to seismic activity its self so it should be possible?

Would a runway on stilts have a lesser environmental impact than fully reclaiming the land? I am all for preserving and protecting nature and the natural landscape but there are certainly other considerations to be made, safety being at the forefront. I think it is also important to consider the environmental implications of leaving the airport as-is with its inefficient design. I have been on several flights that have had to hold for 30+ minutes during flow control. This wastes a lot of fuel and more importantly, is putting a lot of extra emissions into the atmosphere. Additionally, I have been in a take off queue for a long as an hour at SFO due flown control and runway configuration. I believe the captain turned off one engine to save fuel but the other was pumping emissions into the air for an hour longer than it would have if the airport was made more efficient. These are just several examples that have happened to me. I'm sure every regular into SFO has similar stories. It almost seems like groups blocking attempts at expansion are really "robbing Peter to pay Paul".

77H
 
mxaxai
Posts: 619
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:49 am

Maybe one of the respective local residents can explain:

Why is the water next to SFO / JFK so rich in wildlife compared to, for example, the waters surrounding HKG, SIN, KIX, HND, ...?
Even Oakland has a runway built on reclaimed land, as are parts of SFO and JFK already.
 
hayzel777
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 3:18 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:07 am

mxaxai wrote:
Maybe one of the respective local residents can explain:

Why is the water next to SFO / JFK so rich in wildlife compared to, for example, the waters surrounding HKG, SIN, KIX, HND, ...?
Even Oakland has a runway built on reclaimed land, as are parts of SFO and JFK already.

For SFO, it may be because of the landfill underneath the airport.
 
hayzel777
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 3:18 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:11 am

77H wrote:
hayzel777 wrote:
uta999 wrote:
Have there ever been or will there ever be future expansion at both JFK and SFO, by reclaiming land from the Bay area surrounding them both?

Considering how important both airports are, I am very surprised by the lack of future planning. It would have been a lot easier decades ago, than now.

SFO has proposed moving 28R into the bay to allow for dual runway use(the 28s are currently too close if the weather goes bad or it’s night time); however, the local environmentalists oppose the plans and the last time it was proposed, protests were all over City Hall and people chained themselves to parts of the airport. The airport has never proposed any reclaimed land projects ever since.


What about building a runway out over the bay on stilts rather than reclaimed land similar to HND's newest runway? My initial thought is that it would be a nonstarter due to the Coastal California's seismic activity. But Tokyo and Japan in general is no stranger to seismic activity its self so it should be possible?

Would a runway on stilts have a lesser environmental impact than fully reclaiming the land? I am all for preserving and protecting nature and the natural landscape but there are certainly other considerations to be made, safety being at the forefront. I think it is also important to consider the environmental implications of leaving the airport as-is with its inefficient design. I have been on several flights that have had to hold for 30+ minutes during flow control. This wastes a lot of fuel and more importantly, is putting a lot of extra emissions into the atmosphere. Additionally, I have been in a take off queue for a long as an hour at SFO due flown control and runway configuration. I believe the captain turned off one engine to save fuel but the other was pumping emissions into the air for an hour longer than it would have if the airport was made more efficient. These are just several examples that have happened to me. I'm sure every regular into SFO has similar stories. It almost seems like groups blocking attempts at expansion are really "robbing Peter to pay Paul".

77H

I highly doubt that is any different. The argument against the reclaimed land is that there is a certain species that only resides on the banks of the airport and anything that moved out into the bay would disrupt them.
 
GoSharks
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 3:23 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:24 am

As a United 1k based out of sfo, the delays aren’t that frequent and just comes with the territory. Isn’t that big a deal. I would be opposed to filling in the bay for what ends up being minimal benefit.

It isn’t particularly expensive to fly out of sfo either - flights to Asia can even be considered as dirt cheap. Flying out of sjc or oak is usually similar or more expensive when compared to sfo.
 
User avatar
chunhimlai
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:03 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:58 am

mxaxai wrote:
Maybe one of the respective local residents can explain:

Why is the water next to SFO / JFK so rich in wildlife compared to, for example, the waters surrounding HKG, SIN, KIX, HND, ...?
Even Oakland has a runway built on reclaimed land, as are parts of SFO and JFK already.


For HND, the coastal area of Tokyo bay has been developing for hundreds of years
When HND is planning to build 4th runway, most residential concern for noise issue but not wildlife

For KIX the locals are happy with the new airport to boost the local economy

For HKG, general public noise and traffic problem nearby KaiTak while the Government concern of budget
 
birdbrainz
Posts: 464
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 6:57 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:10 am

SFOA380 wrote:

The Bay Area CSA is approaching 9 MIL in population and, like all other big cities faces urban planning problems. They are certainly not unique to here. I take Caltrain every day. It’s a great way to get into the city and ridership has doubled over the past four years. Bart is hauling nearly 500K passengers daily and was designed for 125. Infrastructure changes are always painfully slow and rarely keep pace with population.


I too, adore CalTrain, and use it every chance I get when I'm back in the Bay Area. I also used lightrail in San Jose a lot as well. My only point there is that there continues to be some very shortsighted decision-making on the part of the Bay Area governments wrt real transit infratructure, and that's in nobody's interest. I almost cried when I read the plans for the new Transbay terminal.

BART has some very fundamental capacity issues (like no double decker), and even some rail advocates I know think they should scuttle it and start over with a standard gauge system. The BART line running to SFO has to be the noisiest I've ever heard, and I can't help but wonder what Europeans used to quiet intercity trains must be thinking as they take BART from SFO to downtown SF.

Anyhow, back to SFO, one cannot help but wonder how long anyone thinks SFO can safely and efficieintly operate and expand using that runway configuration. On the other hand, SFO's terminals are among the most attractive I've seen.
A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is if the aircraft can be flown again.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 619
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:45 am

hayzel777 wrote:
I highly doubt that is any different. The argument against the reclaimed land is that there is a certain species that only resides on the banks of the airport and anything that moved out into the bay would disrupt them.

Would it not be an option to build something out in the sea, connected to the existing airport only via one or two taxiways? It would look similar to Haneda's new runway and have minimal impact on the airport banks while also moving the noise even further out into the bay. I would even suggest only building a short runway, perhaps 2500 m long, to minimize the environmental impact. It should be sufficient for all arrivals and all narrowbody departures.
 
User avatar
hongkongflyer
Posts: 524
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:23 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 3:25 am

chunhimlai wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
Maybe one of the respective local residents can explain:

Why is the water next to SFO / JFK so rich in wildlife compared to, for example, the waters surrounding HKG, SIN, KIX, HND, ...?
Even Oakland has a runway built on reclaimed land, as are parts of SFO and JFK already.


For HND, the coastal area of Tokyo bay has been developing for hundreds of years
When HND is planning to build 4th runway, most residential concern for noise issue but not wildlife

For KIX the locals are happy with the new airport to boost the local economy

For HKG, general public noise and traffic problem nearby KaiTak while the Government concern of budget


HKG will be mixed out after the 3rd runway project as there is the home of Chinese white dolphin
 
User avatar
N62NA
Posts: 4347
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 4:03 am

JFK was built on landfill back in a time when it was perfectly OK to do so. Today, not so OK.
How come I can't upload an avatar photo to my profile?
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 2028
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 4:23 am

jfklganyc wrote:
Both are in liberal cities filled with lots of NIMBYS. Nothing happening


Not the same thing. NYC airports literally have nowhere else to grow, except for maybe LGA, but that will require the closure of Rikers' Island to make it work. If the perimeter rule were to be relaxed, then perhaps relief would happen. However, mostly speaking, the major area of growth is possible at SWF, which has a shuttle bus service to Manhattan.
 
AirFiero
Posts: 827
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 4:34 am

birdbrainz wrote:
Oh, one more thing: SJC is completely hemmed in, so don't look for too much expansion or additional capacity at SJC. I don't know much about OAK's ability to expand. Oh, and Moffett Field ain't gonna happen. Too many NIMBY's there, too. As far as I can tell, there's more hope for NYC that SF because NYC isn't surrounded by a whole lotta hills like the way the SF Bay Area is.


SJC has two full length parallel runways. Too close for simultaneous approaches, but they frequently used a “sidestep” in visual conditions.

As for terminal space, they have space and plans for expansion as KLM said. Plenty of room for more flights.
 
DaufuskieGuy
Posts: 406
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:35 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 4:51 am

AirFiero wrote:
birdbrainz wrote:
Oh, one more thing: SJC is completely hemmed in, so don't look for too much expansion or additional capacity at SJC. I don't know much about OAK's ability to expand. Oh, and Moffett Field ain't gonna happen. Too many NIMBY's there, too. As far as I can tell, there's more hope for NYC that SF because NYC isn't surrounded by a whole lotta hills like the way the SF Bay Area is.


SJC has two full length parallel runways. Too close for simultaneous approaches, but they frequently used a “sidestep” in visual conditions.

As for terminal space, they have space and plans for expansion as KLM said. Plenty of room for more flights.


it appears oak has even more room to grow, looking at their map. as sfo gets more congested that will keep people from crossing the bridge/bart
 
JRL3289
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 11:57 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 5:04 am

jfklganyc wrote:
Both are in liberal cities filled with lots of NIMBYS. Nothing happening


NIMBYism isn't something restricted to "liberal cities" though. NYC and SF are two of the largest and most densely populated areas in the country. Population density and topography have far more to do with restrictions on development than political ideology.
 
atsiang
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 8:40 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 5:30 am

If that Air Canada flight had crashed into those 5 planes taxing for 28R, I'm sure there would have been a push to relocate 28R. But the whole runway issue has been a mess over the years with nimbys, environmentalist...etc. I've been in the bay area for the past 35 years and have a lot to say about the ridiculous infrastructure but this is not the right thread for such a discussion.
 
hayzel777
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 3:18 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 6:07 am

mxaxai wrote:
hayzel777 wrote:
I highly doubt that is any different. The argument against the reclaimed land is that there is a certain species that only resides on the banks of the airport and anything that moved out into the bay would disrupt them.

Would it not be an option to build something out in the sea, connected to the existing airport only via one or two taxiways? It would look similar to Haneda's new runway and have minimal impact on the airport banks while also moving the noise even further out into the bay. I would even suggest only building a short runway, perhaps 2500 m long, to minimize the environmental impact. It should be sufficient for all arrivals and all narrowbody departures.

Not something the NIMBYs want. Every single time SFO has a new update on construction for the airport, they always include a small blurb that says there are no plans to extend into the bay so that the NIMBYs don't kick anything up.
 
Chasensfo
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 2:07 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:12 am

To be honest, now that planes landing at SFO can do reduced separation ILS approaches, it isn't as bad as it used to be. When I started doing airline customer service in 2007, a day of low overcast and/or visbility easily meant the 2200 arrival bank was due in at 0130-0200. Now, that 2200 bank is more likely to come in at 2330-0030. Still not great, but things have gotten a lot better. What really screws SFO is a 28/28(that is to say landing/departing) operation these days(or 19/19, 10/10, and especially 01/01 but those 3 are rare).

Still, as a person who does operations for most of the airlines in SFO, I can tell you the JFK delays are almost always more severe, and also much more frequent. That is not to say SFO isn't a dumpster fire in it's own right, but I think JFK has better chance for more efficient ops in their current config than SFO does. I'd be shocked to see either airport expand physically into the bay in the next decade or two. I'm all for the environment, but the NIMBYs often are out for blood, not logical compromise. They turned down an offer to restore more wetlands elsewhere in the SF Bay Area than would be used for airport expansion, meaning after airport expansion there would be MORE protected wetlands in the area than before the project. I don't think there was even much of a discussion, it was relatively a pretty instant rejection from the opposing party.

I used to love telling pax who whined on 3-5 hour GDP days about how unacceptable this was that the airport has been trying for years to spread the runways into the Bay a few hundred feet, but we won't approve it. Let me tell you, there was never a single environmentalist to be found once that topic came up and people were stranded.
 
blockski
Posts: 281
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:54 pm

mxaxai wrote:
Maybe one of the respective local residents can explain:

Why is the water next to SFO / JFK so rich in wildlife compared to, for example, the waters surrounding HKG, SIN, KIX, HND, ...?
Even Oakland has a runway built on reclaimed land, as are parts of SFO and JFK already.


JFK and SFO are in the US, and thus subject to a variety of environmental laws that don’t apply in other countries. NEPA, the endangered species act, clean water act, etc. If my memory serves, all of the major airport runway fill projects in the US predate those laws.

It’s not that it’s impossible to do fill, but it’s a lot harder to justify that kind of a project in a way that doesn’t open the airport up to lengthy litigation.
 
uta999
Topic Author
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:10 am

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:10 pm

I don't buy all this environmental crap whenever airport expansion is mentioned. If the wildlife like it so much being next to a busy, noisy and polluted airport, that implies the effects on the environment are plain wrong. By expanding into the Bay, you are simply creating a new habitat, not destroying one.

At LHR, the average delay for arrivals and departures is 20 minutes. That's 5000 days per year of noise and fumes, caused by the so called environmental lobby.
Your computer just got better
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 4959
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:50 pm

Turning a shovel in NY requires years of approvals from various state and city agencies. Several rounds of lawsuits court. And a huge budget that pays for fully funded pensions and healthcare of all the union employees involved in the process above.

It is harder and more expensive to spearhead a project here than anywhere else. SF is close, if not on par with NY with regards to costs and difficulties.

That is why peoole leave NY.

Enjoy JFK for what it is.

You will get your expanding airport joy when you move from Long Island to Florida in a few years haha
 
cloudboy
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:38 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:00 pm

Eventually airlines are just going to have to start using fewer, larger, planes.
"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
 
toxtethogrady
Posts: 1855
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2000 12:33 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:09 pm

RJNUT wrote:
I wonder how many of those "chainers" have ever loudly displayed their upset over the chronic delays at SFO or exhorbitant fares?!


They have two solutions to suggest - Oakland and San Jose. They also encourage the airlines to use larger airplanes.
 
toxtethogrady
Posts: 1855
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2000 12:33 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:10 pm

It has been my experience that both JFK and SFO have had limited runway capacity for decades. Yet they keep seeing traffic increases. So somehow, it's working.
 
toxtethogrady
Posts: 1855
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2000 12:33 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:16 pm

blockski wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
Maybe one of the respective local residents can explain:

Why is the water next to SFO / JFK so rich in wildlife compared to, for example, the waters surrounding HKG, SIN, KIX, HND, ...?
Even Oakland has a runway built on reclaimed land, as are parts of SFO and JFK already.


JFK and SFO are in the US, and thus subject to a variety of environmental laws that don’t apply in other countries. NEPA, the endangered species act, clean water act, etc. If my memory serves, all of the major airport runway fill projects in the US predate those laws.

It’s not that it’s impossible to do fill, but it’s a lot harder to justify that kind of a project in a way that doesn’t open the airport up to lengthy litigation.


It is not true that the SF Bay is rich in wildlife compared to Hong Kong and Singapore. We're just not as familiar with the aquatic flora and fauna in those parts of the world.

There are environmental restrictions everywhere. It's one of the reasons Hong Kong has had a hard time adding a third runway. Places like China and India, which tend to be lax about air quality, compensate by having the citizens walk around wearing face masks...
 
blockski
Posts: 281
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: JFK / SFO bay development

Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:26 pm

toxtethogrady wrote:
blockski wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
Maybe one of the respective local residents can explain:

Why is the water next to SFO / JFK so rich in wildlife compared to, for example, the waters surrounding HKG, SIN, KIX, HND, ...?
Even Oakland has a runway built on reclaimed land, as are parts of SFO and JFK already.


JFK and SFO are in the US, and thus subject to a variety of environmental laws that don’t apply in other countries. NEPA, the endangered species act, clean water act, etc. If my memory serves, all of the major airport runway fill projects in the US predate those laws.

It’s not that it’s impossible to do fill, but it’s a lot harder to justify that kind of a project in a way that doesn’t open the airport up to lengthy litigation.


It is not true that the SF Bay is rich in wildlife compared to Hong Kong and Singapore. We're just not as familiar with the aquatic flora and fauna in those parts of the world.


I didn't say that, of course. It's not particularly relevant, either. The US environmental laws don't protect habitats that are only rich in life compared to Hong Kong; they set an entirely different standard.

There are environmental restrictions everywhere. It's one of the reasons Hong Kong has had a hard time adding a third runway. Places like China and India, which tend to be lax about air quality, compensate by having the citizens walk around wearing face masks...


This is also irrelevant. The 'environmental restrictions' in other countries aren't nearly as a) restrictive, and b) open for litigation as those in the US. A place like Hong Kong also has a completely different system of land ownership and political accountability that makes the political process required to approve a new runway an entirely different proposition.

You hint at this with the difference in air quality between China/India and the US, which is due in no small part to laws like the Clean Air Act. The same is true of the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and others - they are much stricter in the US, and they're not simply administered by bureaucratic fiat. Decisions based on these laws are often handled via litigation.

If you want to make an argument about what the US legal system should look like, go ahead. Or, likewise, decry the unintended consequences of these laws, go ahead. But the level of restrictions are not the same, at all.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos